Gun Control & RKBA

tortoise: I wrote about a fort in Portsmouth being overrun by colonial forces. That would not be referring to the British or their mercenaries.

I suppose I'm partly at fault for thinking you were describing the event properly & accurately.
You clearly said 'portsmouth', not 'new castle' NH. Plus you did not specify a state, and there is a portsmouth in maine as well as new hampshire. And they both had their forts raided, one in 1774, other 1775.

tortoise link: “Dec. 14-15, 1774, several hundred men overpowered the small British garrison at Castle William & Mary, now Fort Constitution, New Castle, and removed quantities of military supplies.
Fort William and Mary was a British fortification manned by soldiers of the Province of New Hampshire. The fort, known as “the Castle,” was situated on the island of New Castle,
Dec. 14, 1774, patriots from the Portsmouth area stormed the post and seized the garrison's powder, which was distributed through several New Hampshire towns for potential use in the growing struggle with Great Britain. On Dec. 15, 1774 again raided the fort, this time seizing numerous cannons.
Britain, which wanted to focus its attention on the military situation in Massachusetts, abandoned the fort, moving remaining equipment to Boston along with Gov. Wentworth.

While portsmouth & new castle are only a few miles apart, new castle is on an island, portsmouth inland, and you do need to get your facts straight before berating others for your own incompetence.
Again you make my point, that the rebels stole from the crown in this case. Reminder to tortoise: for your argument you are supposed to be posting instances where the british stole from the colonists, not vice versy.
-------------------
tortoise: .. the fort I discussed was Fort William and Mary, not Pownall:

You lie. You did not mention the fort by name, you insert the name here to save face. From what you described below, fort pownal would fit moreso than fort Wm & Mary, since you said 'portsmouth' with no state mentioned. Again, do not blame others for your own incompetence. You should be apologizing for not being clearer in your original post.

Here is how you originally described the 'action':

tortoise: On October 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies. (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?) However, the Dutch, who always enjoyed tweaking the nose of the British, cheerfully set about bypassing the ban and providing aid to the colonies, with some success. (This ban was extended for another 6 months in April 1775, but of course by then open hostilities had begun) As a direct response to the knowledge of the ban reaching the colonies, an armed colonial force overran a British fort at Portsmouth and confiscated all arms and ammunition.
--------------------------
tortoise wrote: As a direct response to the knowledge of the ban reaching the colonies, an armed colonial force overran a British fort at Portsmouth

The link tortoise posted contradicts tortoise' sentence above, attributing the raid on Ft Wm & Mary to Paul Revere's first ride.

tortoise' link: These raids, set off by Paul Revere's ride to Portsmouth on Dec. 13, were among the first overt acts of the American Revolution.”
------------------------------
tortoise: I wrote about a fort in Portsmouth being overrun by colonial forces. That would not be referring to the British or their mercenaries

tortoise contradicts himself again, unsure whether colonials could BE british, or not be british: .. he keeps trying to differentiate between “British” and “colonists”. The fact is that most of the colonists considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, and as such, expected to be allowed to enjoy the rights of British subjects.